Reading critical theory

why do I tend to be dismissive of the people who are of privileged backgrounds? why do I feel, that the very fact that person is from a privileged background disqualifies him or her to champion the cause of the subaltern? Is it a reflection on myself? Or is it plain, pure jealousy? Postcolonial scholars as a rule come from the same privileged background that they criticize and continuously disown. Their research is exemplary, their words make meanings, sense, they cry out for social justice....but they live the same bourgeoisie lifestyle..Bapu said, be the change that you wish to see in the world. But with my comfortable diggings, life, access the highest form of academic articulation, how can I speak about deprived people, the subaltern, the marginalized. I who never have known hunger and at present am never short of food, what can I speak or write about hunger apart from restating the obvious? Is it the sophistication of my language that makes me unique? I feel more inspired by the one gesture of my bourgeoisie cardiologist father who treats poor patients for free and gives them medicines than all these glorious statements of the scholars. Why am I bent upon taking a holier than though attitude? Is it dismissive? To what level of consciousness must I rise up to....Telling daily to understand my privileges and get rid of them, I revel in terms like solidarity and reflexivity but still drive the 22,000$ car and stay in a million dollar home, use the best of technology and work on the indigenous people....how much of a hypocrite am I? Is this not hypocrisy? .....Maybe I am missing something here...let me read more and analyse...Lord Krishna says,

" कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।

मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोस्त्वऽकर्मणि॥"